Standing Committee D

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Homes Bill

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Among the very exciting events that took place yesterday, there were other events much less publicised by the media. The Committee might like to be updated on what is happening to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and his wife. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that at 1.27 am yesterday, baby Benjamin was born. Mrs. Brake and child are doing very well. My hon. Friend, however, said that he is extremely tired.

Nigel Waterson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. On behalf of the official Opposition, I ask the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to pass on our very best wishes to the proud parents and, perhaps, also to express the hope that in due course the hon. Gentleman will have more time to spend with his family.

George Stevenson: That is a valid point of order. I am sure that the entire Committee will wish to extend congratulations. That news is probably more exciting than the other news we have had over the past few days.

Nick Raynsford: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I with to extend congratulations from the Government side of the Committee to Mrs. Brake and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. We look forward to seeing him back in due course.
 I wish to point out that we have made available, and placed in this Room, additional material that I hope will help Committee members in their understanding of some of the issues raised during the debate on part II, which we should reach later this morning. We will also be making available further information this afternoon to help with some of the intricacies involved in the homelessness procedures in part II.

George Stevenson: We thank the Minister for the information provided this morning and await with eager anticipation the further information being made available this afternoon.

Tim Loughton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I was delighted to receive the document as we walked in this morning, but it is 176 pages long. If, as the Minister promises, it will be relevant to our deliberations later today, how are we expected to read 176 pages, let alone make an assessment on them? Is there a more succinct summary of the proposals that could be made available to the Committee?

George Stevenson: If there is, I am sure that the Minister will have taken note of that request. It is important that information is provided at the earliest possible opportunity so that hon. Members can digest it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point has been well noted by the Minister. New Clause 1 Agreement between vendor and purchaser

New Clause 1 - Agreement between vendor and purchaser

`.—(1) This section and sections (Proof of ability to pay sale price) and (Withdrawal from contract, etc.) apply to an agreement between a vendor and a purchaser for the sale of a property for a price greater than £2,000.
 (2) Such an agreement shall constitute a contract, which shall be binding on both parties.
 (3) Where such a contract is made the vendor and purchaser shall each pay to the other party or to the agent of the other party a sum which shall not be less than £2,000.
 (4) The vendor and the purchaser shall agree a date for the completion of the contract.
 (5) The Secretary of State may make regulations varying the sums in subsections (1) and (3).'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Proof of ability to pay sale price—
 `.—(1) No person shall enter into an agreement to purchase aproperty without proof of his ability to pay the agreed sale price.
 (2) A person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £700 in addition to forfeiting any sum paid under section 1(3).
 (3) The Secretary of State may make regulations varying the sum in subsection (2).'.
 New clause 3—Withdrawal from contract, etc.— 
 `.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), if one of the parties to a contract— 
 (a) withdraws from the contract; or 
 (b) otherwise frustrates or fails to complete the contract by the agreed date he shall forfeit any sum paid under section 1(3) and shall be liable for any costs in excess of that sum incurred by the other party in consequence of the contract. 
 (2) But subsection (1) does not apply where a purchaser has reasonable grounds for withdrawing from a contract. 
 (3) ``Reasonable grounds'' shall include but shall not be limited to— 
 (a) the discovery of a structural or other defect in the property which was not known to the purchaser at the time of the agreement; 
 (b) the discovery of a development proposal or other factor having a direct effect on the value of the property which was not known to the purchaser at the time of the agreement.'.

Don Foster: I thank the Committee for ensuring that the previous sitting's deliberations finished before the debate on these new clauses. As hon. Members will be aware, both I and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were unable to be present at the end of our deliberations on Tuesday because of the business on the floor of the House. Consequently, it is only right to seek to move these new clauses as quickly as I can so that the Committee can move on to part II.
 The three new clauses are based almost entirely on the work of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in his Property Transactions Bill 1999. That Bill had all-party support including, among many others, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). 
 The purpose of the amendments is to address one of the two ghosts at the feast. When we come to part II, we shall discuss the other ghost, namely registered social landlords, but now we are discussing the ghost that is the issue of gazumping and gazundering, which was repeatedly mentioned on Second Reading and has already been raised in this Committee. The point has been made that, notwithstanding some of the good measures contained within the Bill, there is little that will address one of the key concerns of those involved in the stressful business of buying and selling houses. I acknowledge that the introduction of the seller's pack might ease the problem to a small extent, but I suspect that we need tougher measures than only the seller's pack if we are to tackle it successfully. That is what the three new clauses are designed to provide. 
 New clause 1 stipulates that a deposit must be paid by both vendor and purchaser and that an agreement for the sale of the property constitutes a binding contract; it also requires the vendor and purchaser to agree a completion date. New clause 2 requires that a purchaser entering into such a binding contract must be able to offer proof of his or her ability to pay the agreed sale price. New clause 3 stipulates, subject to various exclusions, the forfeiture of the deposit plus the other party's costs in the event failure to complete the contract by the agreed date. 
 New clause 1 recognises that when an offer has been made and accepted, both parties have already entered into a very costly process and both stand to lose money if the contract is not completed. Under the new clauses, if one of the parties to the contract withdrew, or frustrated or failed to complete the contract by the agreed date, he or she would forfeit the deposit made when the contract between vendor and purchaser was entered into. The 1999 Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford included the figure of £2,000. We think that that is probably appropriate but, for the avoidance of doubt, we have provided in subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to vary that figure by regulation. We think that it is important that both sides enter into such an agreement, but that the defaulting party should bear the costs of the frustrated party, as happens in many commercial transactions. 
 We believe that new clause 2 will help to speed up sales and remove a cause of contract failure. It will become an offence for buyers to enter into a binding contract—the sort set out in new clause 1—unless the proposed purchaser can demonstrate that he has the funds to meet the agreed sales price. For most buyers, that would mean having a mortgage offer in place. Subject to its being accepted by the lender, which takes us back to issues we have debated previously, the seller's pack could provide great assistance and ease that process to a considerable extent. 
 New clause 3 enforces a binding contract by stipulating that if the contract fails, the defaulting party becomes liable to forfeit his or her deposit and is liable for the costs of the frustrated party. As members of the Committee will understand, there will clearly be a number of exceptions to the rule—after all, during the process of the buying and selling houses, things can go wrong that are not the fault of either of the two parties, for example, the discovery of structural or other defects in the property that were not known to the purchaser at the time of the agreement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has making some fundamental points very quickly; obviously a great deal more thought would be needed before they could be put into law. Nevertheless, a similar system to the one that he advocates exists in Scotland. Can he tell the Committee about the similarities and differences between the two systems? What are the pitfalls in the Scottish system that mean that it could not immediately be incorporated into the English system and thereby obviate the need for his amendment?

Don Foster: There is indeed a similar, but different, system operating in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is diligent in his research, will be aware that there are also similar schemes in other parts of the world, notably in a number of American states. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, whose research contributed greatly to the development of this Bill, we have looked at some of the defects of other systems, including those used in Scotland and America. The key issue is addressed in new clause 3, that is, the reasons why people are able legitimately to say that they are not at fault in the sale having been frustrated. It is important that new clause 3—or any Government substitute for new clause 3 that might be tabled—makes clear the reasons why it could be perfectly right and understandable for the deposits not to be paid back. That has been our aim. I repeat that the new clauses are to a large extent based on the work of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, whose name appears above all three new clauses.

Tim Loughton: I have a few comments to make on behalf of the official Opposition. We accord with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the same applies to some of the aims that he is trying to achieve. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford put so much work into the subject. However, we have a problem with the way in which the new clauses are fashioned. I will deal with them one by one.
 On the issue of paying over a sum of not less than £2,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has already said, we cannot see why the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of going the whole hog as has been done in Scotland, where the deal amounts to an exchange of contract, rather than being subject to contract, as transactions in this country are. We seem to have got a fudged halfway house. 
 I think that is a very sensible idea to require a pre-contract guarantee note, or similar, from a mortgage lender, but I do not think that it is sensible to make it another legal requirement and to criminalise those who do not obtain it. It seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What if a mortgage company were dilatory about producing the pre-contract guarantee note and the house sale was lost as a result? That can easily happen in a property boom, when there may be several people interested in the same property. Therefore, through no fault of the potential purchaser, a property could be lost because a particular mortgage company took several days longer than it should have to ascertain the potential purchaser's financial situation and produce the required documents.

Don Foster: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with considerable interest. However, let us take the new clauses in conjunction with part I and the introduction of the seller's pack. From the point at which the marketing of the property begins, the seller's pack will be available. Does he agree that it will contain information upon which the lender can base a judgment, which will significantly speed up the process?

Tim Loughton: Yes, but the seller's pack does not contain anything do to with mortgage guarantees by the purchaser. In the race that might occur between potential purchasers and interested parties—they would be on a level playing field if they were all prepared to accept the home condition report and other elements of the seller's pack, although many of them may not—the interests of a potential purchaser who happened to have a slower mortgage company than the others or whose financial situation might be a little more complicated, requiring financial guarantees and so on, would effectively be prejudiced. He would be threatened with a criminal conviction if he went ahead without a mortgage guarantee.
 This is a big market, with 1.5 million property transactions, the majority of which involve mortgages. When the property market is particularly hot, mortgage companies may take longer and longer. A form of mortgage guarantee is already happening on a voluntary basis. Some mortgage lenders, which are extremely competitive and exist in many forms, are producing their own ideas and pilot schemes—fully-fledged schemes in some cases—which effectively give a potential purchaser a guarantee that, on the basis of financial information displayed, a certain sum of money will be advanced. That can be shown as evidence to a vendor that the potential purchaser has the cash to back up any offer that may be made. I believe that instances of such behaviour will increase. As is the case with much of what is being imposed in the seller's pack, that is already happening in the market, without the additional cost in most cases and certainly without the threat of criminal conviction. Therefore, we cannot accept that a mortgage guarantee note should be compulsory or that the absence of such a note should result in a criminal conviction. That is our problem with the second of the new clauses. 
 The third new clause would act as a heck of a deterrent for anyone venturing into the house buying market. The hon. Member for Bath is proposing that the deposit of not less than £2,000 should be forfeited and that someone involved in a frustrated sale should be liable for all the costs incurred by the vendor, which could be a considerable amount of money. If a sale has fallen through and the vendor is angry because his purchase of another house depends on that sale, he is unlikely to say, ``That's all right, these things happen and we won't impose any conditions.'' If he sees an opportunity, he is likely to press for every cost he can, from solicitors' costs to the cost of the inconvenience involved in showing people around the property and so on. It is a lawyers' charter, and we could be opening the floodgates to go the way of the United States, where the problems of home buying have completely clogged up the courts in the state of Massachusetts. 
 The process of buying houses could become even more litigious than it is now. Subsection (3) to new clause 3 talks about ``reasonable grounds''. The definition of ``reasonable grounds'' is another lawyers' charter. We had a short debate about the definition of ``reasonableness'' in an earlier sitting. The new clause states that the costs will not be incurred if there are ``reasonable grounds'' for the failure of a sale. The ``reasonable grounds could include 
the discovery of a structural or other defect 
On what scale of badness is that defect? If a piece of plaster is found to be flaking off the kitchen wall, is that a defect that merits the triggering of costs for the frustration of the sale. What if the defects are not known to the vendor? As we have discussed, problems with a house, of which a vendor may be blissfully unaware despite having lived there for many years, may come up in a survey, but are less likely to come up in a home condition report because they are to be less thorough. In fact, problems might not come up in either a survey or an HCR, but may appear later. A potential purchaser might then feel aggrieved and use it as an excuse, however minor, to get out of a purchase because he has seen something better and cheaper elsewhere and is looking for any excuse to get out of the original purchase. Would the discovery of some unsound plasterwork constitute a defect, thereby putting the vendor at fault for having misled the purchaser? 
 The legislation is fraught with problems that we can do without in what is already a very nanny-type Bill. I suppose that we should not be surprised that the Liberal Democrats are joining in the nanny state chorus that we hear so often from the Government, of which parts of this Bill are another example. 
 Although we support the problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Bath and identify with some of the solutions that he wants to apply, we think that he is going about it in the wrong way. He is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and, as I have said, many of the issues are already being addressed by the market. The whole process of buying and selling houses is being improved, although not perhaps as quickly as we would like. However, within the confines of the cheapest house-selling market in Europe, improvements are being made at a satisfactory pace.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mr. Stevenson, it is good to welcome you back to the Chair.This is an important subject that has not yet really been covered by the Committee because it has not so far come within the scope of the Bill.
 Should the current English system of privity of contract be amended in any way? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that the halfway house, proposed in all sincerity by the hon. Member for Bath, is the worst of all worlds. 
 Basically, when one proceeds with a transaction, one wants it to continue. There is no point in forcing a purchaser into a situation that they would subsequently regret. Therefore, if one wants to move away from the current English system of privity of contract, one should go the whole hog and move towards the Scottish system. 
 It would have been helpful if the hon. Member for Bath had described the Scottish system. In that way, we could have assessed the two systems and seen which was preferable. I will describe the Scottish system and then say what I think is wrong with the new clauses. 
 In the Scottish system, all pre-contract inquiries are completed and the documents prepared so that when a vendor accepts an offer, it becomes immediately binding. Any deposit paid cannot be forfeited back to the purchaser. Furthermore, if the purchaser does not complete the transaction, he can be sued for any subsequent losses incurred by the seller. 
 That seems to be a much better system, as it concentrates the mind of the purchaser. He will not make an offer unless he is absolutely certain that he has all the documents, guarantees and warranties that he requires. Only then will he enter into a binding offer because he knows that he will lose his money if he withdraws. 
 The problem with the hon. Member for Bath's solution, is that it is a halfway house. If a purchaser rescinds from the contract, he forfeits a small amount of money—£2,000—and is possibly subject to a fine on summary conviction of £700. Under the Scottish system, he would forfeit his entire deposit. For example, if he were buying a £100,000 house, he would forfeit his £10,000 deposit. That is a much greater deterrent. It also provides certainty in the system because the moment that offer becomes binding, the transaction has effectively gone through. 
 I am sure that the Minister must have thought about the Scottish system carefully. It has a number of merits. In view of the extensive consultation and the Bristol trial, I am not sure why the Minister has not considered adopting it. He did not explain that on Second Reading. It overcomes one of the chief objections to this part of the Bill—the problem with gazumping and gazundering—because as soon as an offer becomes binding, there is no chance of a greedy vendor accepting a higher offer. 
 The only way of getting out of a binding offer is if the information could not have been known when the offer was made. That is not normally something like a structural survey because it is up to the purchaser to make all the inquiries that he reasonably needs to carry out a structural survey and he should rely on the basis of that structural survey. Only fairly obscure matters like a defect in title, which could not possibly have been known about at the time of the offer, would enable a purchaser to resile from a binding offer. 
 As the Committee knows, I do not like the idea of criminal sanctions entering into what is essentially a civil matter. The Scottish system avoids that. Criminal sanctions should be used extremely sparingly because of their knock-on effects. It is not only the fine and the possible prison sentence at the time, but the problems that a person can encounter for the rest of his life such as in getting credit and a whole range of other issues that occur once he gets a criminal record. 
 I abhor the criminal sanctions that are already in the Bill, but I do not think that the method suggested by the hon. Member for Bath for imposing further criminal sanctions in these new clauses adds anything or helps the situation. I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government, who presumably considered the Scottish system, rejected it and decided to retain the present system of privity of contract under the English system.

Nick Raynsford: This has been a curious debate and, in the carefully chosen words of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) at an earlier sitting, it could be concluded that we are holding the debate at the wrong time. I shall not repeat his elegant phrase, but I was astonished to see that it made its way into Hansard.

David Curry: My phrase was not temporal, but spatial.

Nick Raynsford: I was only commenting that I was astonished that it made its way into Hansard. I do not intend to repeat it. My point was that the debate should have come at the beginning of our proceedings on part I, because it is a debate about the ways to tackle the problems inherent in the current system of house buying and selling.
 I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that there are problems. I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—[Hon. Members: ``Hooray.'']—whose constituency name I got in the right order today, that the new clause addresses real problems and that the proposals will not work and are unsatisfactory in a number of ways. However, I do not agree with him about our proposals in part I. I believe that they are an effective remedy to those problems, which makes the option that the hon. Member for Bath proposes unnecessary. I will also pick up on points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about the merits and demerits of the Scottish system. 
 We all agree that a key problem in the current system is the lack of certainty. People find themselves in the process of buying and selling without being certain about the information that is necessary to reach an informed decision on how much to pay, the speed at which the transaction will proceed or whether the transaction will go ahead. The figures cited in the debate have highlighted the extent to which transactions fail in the existing system between an offer being made and contracts being exchanged. A high percentage of contracts fail under current arrangements. It is right to consider ways of trying to provide greater certainty for the transaction process and of avoiding problems of abortive costs that can all too easily arise. 
 Conditional contracts, which are the subject of new clause 1, set a completion date from which neither side can withdraw, except as allowed by the conditions. Such contracts are already available, on a voluntary basis, to anyone who wants to use them. Also available are agreements that provide for deposits to be paid and costs guaranteed in the event of the other side pulling out after terms have been agreed. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the National Association of Estate Agents and others have had draft agreements on those lines available for some time. However, those agreements are rarely used because they all have potentially serious drawbacks, some of which were highlighted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. 
 It is true that some countries use conditional contracts. Our international comparison research confirmed that. However, that research noted a crucial difference between the home buying and selling culture of those countries and the culture in England and Wales. In countries where conditional contracts are common, buyers are more prepared to set a completion date and stick to it, even if it means completing before their existing home is sold. That has the obvious corollary that they must make alternative arrangements to accommodate themselves in the meantime. Sellers are more prepared to take temporary rented accommodation if they sell their existing home before their new home is bought. The culture here is entirely different. Buyers and sellers generally want to co-ordinate their transactions, and inevitably that means that the majority of transactions are caught up in chains. 
 Conditional contracts cannot work effectively in a chain where a completion date cannot be set at the outset. If the conditional contract allows flexibility over the completion date, the likely result is a detailed, over-complicated and ineffective agreement full of caveats to meet the various problems that might arise. If there is no flexibility over the completion date, buyers and sellers would no longer be able to co-ordinate their transactions. Buyers would be pushed towards expensive and risky bridging finance, and sellers would have to face the prospect of temporary rented accommodation that will not always be available. Buyers and sellers in England and Wales have made it clear that they do not want that, and it would be wrong, in our view, to force them into such arrangements. 
 We have also looked closely at the scope for introducing cost guarantees. We were attracted by that concept in opposition and we consulted on it in 1996. Initially, cost guarantees, with or without deposits, appeared to offer a potential solution to a situation where one party pulls out leaving the other side high and dry with a lot of wasted expense. However, on closer examination and on listening to the responses to our consultation, we acknowledged that there were practical drawbacks with cost guarantees. One issue is the apportionment of blame, where some or all of the transactions in a chain fail. Deciding where responsibility lies could create even more litigation than any other possible scenario. I must tell the hon. Member for Bath that new clause 3 is a minefield in that respect. 
 New clause 3 essentially says that the deposit is lost except where a purchaser has reasonable grounds for withdrawing from a contract. ``Reasonable grounds'' are then defined as 
the discovery of a structural or other defect— 
a point referred to by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—or the 
discovery of a development proposal or other factor having a direct effect on the value of the property which was not known to the purchaser at the time of the agreement. 
The hon. Member for Bath responded by saying that it could work in conjunction with part I of the Bill. However, in reality, part I is designed to ensure that exactly that information is obtained upfront. 
Mr. Don Foster rose—

Nick Raynsford: I will give way in a moment. This is a complex point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me while I explain it. Where there is no provision for a seller's pack and a home condition report in advance, the lack of those documents can be the very reason that buyers discover problems after they have made an offer, by carrying out searches or surveys themselves. That is the difficulty with any conditional contract: if an exemption is not allowed, such problems may arise, but if it is allowed, there is enormous scope for litigation.

Don Foster: I entirely agree with the Minister, who misunderstood what I said to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham; or perhaps I did not adequately explain what I meant. My point is that the seller's pack, by providing early information, would provide an opportunity to speed up the decision of a mortgage company regarding ability to pay. The Committee's numerous debates on the subject of the seller's pack have revealed that the information it contains cannot always be relied on in the long term. Some information, including, for example, information on local searches, can become out of date.

Nick Raynsford: The Bristol pilot study showed that no transactions with a seller's pack failed because of problems being uncovered at a later stage. Currently, however, 43 per cent. of failed transactions are attributable to matters related to the structure or condition of the property that are discovered after an offer has been made. That is clear evidence of the advantages of a seller's pack. We accept that a seller's pack will not reveal everything in every circumstance; that is why I said that in certain cases the seller's pack will point to the need for a further structural survey. However, the pack will provide far more information than is currently available and overcome the problems that so often occur in the existing system.

Don Foster: I am surprised by the Minister's strength of feeling and the way he pushes the point, because he is merely repeating what I said rather more eloquently. We are in complete agreement.

Nick Raynsford: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman tabled a new clause that would open immense opportunity for litigation. Apart from the two grounds defined as reasonable, new clause 3(3) states:
 ``Reasonable grounds'' shall include but shall not be limited to— 
those points. The proposal would provide enormous scope for litigation of exactly the kind that the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Cotswold identified. That is not a serious way forward.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respect to the hon. Member for Bath, his amendment shows a misunderstanding of the property market. The two reasonable grounds that he identified are relatively obvious: a structural survey will fairly easily reveal a defect in a property and a local authority search will easily reveal a development in prospect. The more complicated legal matters, such as defects in title, rights of way and easements, are not so easy to discover and they can take time to determine. That is when the Scottish system allows people to withdraw. The grounds suggested by the hon. Gentleman are not the most valid ones.

Nick Raynsford: I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold; I was about to deal with the Scottish case because, as he rightly said, there is provision in the Scottish arrangements for withdrawal when certain matters, such as those that he mentioned, are involved, but they take quite a long time.
 That brings me to the nub of the problem with the Scottish system: it works well within a relatively slow-moving market, in which people are prepared to undertake the up-front costs in advance of putting in a bid. There is probably a limited number of bidders and people can therefore take a calculated risk in expending money on a survey or other works in advance while knowing that it will be abortive if their bid is not accepted. However, in the fast-moving market in much of England and Wales, the risk is high. There are not many buyers in England and Wales who would be willing to incur expenditure on a survey and all the legal checks and searches necessary to give them confidence that they should put in a bid that will become unconditional if it is accepted, if there is the prospect of their bid failing because there are many other bidders in the market. 
 If there are many other people in the market, which is increasingly the case in parts of Scotland, including Edinburgh, there is a move away from the traditional Scottish system because of its inherent disadvantages. It is a question of horses for courses—a point made frequently during these debates. Although we accept that the Scottish system works reasonably well in the context of the Scottish market, we believe that it would not work well or find favour with the vast majority of buyers and sellers in the faster-moving market in England and Wales. 
 New clause 2 would require buyers to have proof of their ability to pay the purchase price before agreeing terms. It is very important that buyers are well prepared before embarking on home buying. They should consult mortgage lenders and secure an in-principle mortgage offer before they begin their property search—we think that that is good practice—and nearly all mortgage lenders provide that service. I noticed a recent press release from Legal & General which specifically highlighted the facilities available from that company. It said that obtaining agreements in principle 
will increase greatly and become standard market practice once the Homes Bill becomes law and is introduced in 2003. 
We regard that as good practice because the assistance of mortgage lenders, estate agents and conveyancers will make it possible for early in-principle mortgage offers to become widely available. 
 If buyers know at the outset the size of the mortgage that they can afford, they will be far less likely to make spurious offers that they cannot live up to and sellers and estate agents will be able to save a lot of time that would otherwise be wasted. Equally, it will give teeth to the provisions we have already debated that allow an agent to decline to issue a seller's pack to someone who he does not believe is in a position to proceed with the transaction. People who cannot demonstrate that they have the ability to raise the necessary finance could cause an unreasonable delay. 
 There are all sorts of benefits from that approach, but it will need to be handled carefully. It might not be in the buyer's interest when making an offer to reveal to the seller or seller's agent how much he can afford to pay, as that could prejudice his position in negotiations and encourage the seller to press the buyer for a higher offer. That, too, lends weight to the argument for the flexibility provided by the voluntary approach, rather than for imposing the sort of burden of proof proposed in the new clause. 
 We agree with the criticisms of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Cotswold about the new clauses being excessively rigid, even if the underlying intention is good. The best way to deal with change, to bring about earlier certainty and to reduce the risk of gazumping and other problems without putting legitimate activities at risk is the introduction of the seller's pack. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clauses.

Don Foster: In the spirit of brevity, I thank the Minister and the other hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I think it is interesting to reflect that, during on Second Reading, at column 737, Mr. Waterson said:
 After all this time, and all their empty promises, the Government have failed to tackle the problem of gazumping.—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 737.] 
Despite those brave words, I see not a single Conservative amendment to address that particular problem. I have tabled three new clauses in an attempt to ensure that we debate the issue and to give others an opportunity to contribute their own suggestions on tackling it. 
 The Minister has assured us at great length that the seller's pack is so wonderful that it absolutely must be applied to almost every transaction. However, the language he uses in responding to my new clause is somewhat different: he says that the culture in this country is different from anywhere else, so it is vital that we continue to use a voluntary approach. He is being incredibly schizophrenic. At least his words imply that the rest of part I will go some way to solving the problem and that mine is at least a legitimate argument. 
 Conservative Members have given no indication that they intend to address the issue—in fact, there appears to be some confusion among them. I noted with interest the comment of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who has come to the view that the problems no longer exist because they are increasingly addressed by the market. Perhaps he disagrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. Throughout our discussions over the past 10 days, we have given examples of how all the bodies involved in the property transaction market are making house buying and selling easier. The Law Society has its transaction scheme and mortgage lenders are speeding up their whole system, the internet is the speeding up searches, and so on. Things may not be changing quickly enough, but we are getting there without the need for any legislation.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is putting on the record the fact that despite the protestations of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne on Second Reading, Conservative Members intend to take no action to address the issues of gazumping and gazundering. Since they have also made it clear that they will not even support the introduction of seller's packs, they stand charged as the party that raised an issue but was not prepared to do anything about it.
 Members on both sides of the Committee have made cogent arguments showing that while the broad principles in the three new clauses make sense, there are concerns about specific details. I do not find all their arguments convincing. The Minister says about new clause 2, for example, that information from a mortgage society might be in a form that would mislead the seller into believing that he could bump up the price, thereby making life more difficult. Life does not have to be like that.

Nick Raynsford: On a point of clarification—I am sorry if I did not make the point clearly enough—I was stressing that, although we believe that in-principle agreements will become commonplace, confidence in the market will apply. I cited an example that demonstrated that. A statutory scheme requiring a buyer to show a precise figure to the seller or the seller's agent could have an adverse impact on his negotiating position in respect of the property price.

Don Foster: If a purchaser revealed to a vendor the fact that a mortgage company was in a position to offer the purchaser £100,000, say, when negotiating for a property priced at half that sum, the problem that the Minister describes may occur. However, the wording of new clause 2 taken in conjunction with new clause 1 makes it clear that the point at which the vendor has to demonstrate the ability to pay is the point at which an agreement is made on the precise sum of money in the contract. The vendor would have to show only that he was in a position to provide those funds. The showing of hands, as it were, would therefore not come until the point of contract at which the price has been agreed.
 It is important that we have had a debate on the issue. 
 It is important that we have had a debate on the issue. I have had the opportunity to hear the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I shall reflect on any alternative proposals that I might table at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I just one point?

George Stevenson: I am in some difficulty. We have had a fair debate and the hon. Member for Bath has sought the Committee's leave to withdraw the motion. I feel obliged to put that question.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 - Duty of local housing authority to formulate a homelessness strategy

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 101, page 10, line 4, at beginning insert
 `In conjunction with its strategic partners'.

George Stevenson: With this we take the following amendments: No. 88, in page 10, line 4, after `authority', insert
`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives; landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'.
 No. 102, in page 10, line 8, at end insert 
 `( ) For the purpose of this Bill strategic partners shall include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'.
 No. 64, in page 10, line 12, at end insert 
 `( ) The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall give such assistance in connection with the exercise of the power under subsection (1) as the authority may reasonably require.'.
 No. 98, in page 10, line 20, at end insert 
 `(4A) The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.
 No. 65, in page 10, line 25, at end insert 
 `( ) The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall take the homelessness strategy for the district of a local housing authority into account in the exercise of their functions in relation to that district.'.
 No. 66, in clause 17, page 10, line 34, after `authorities', insert 
`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority'.
 No. 89, clause 18, page 11, line 10, after `authority', insert 
`and its strategic partners'.
 No. 68, clause 18, page 11, line 29, after `organisation', insert 
`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority'.
 No. 71, clause 19, page 12, line 17, at end insert 
```registered social landlord'' has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996'.
 New clause 10—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies— 
 `( ).—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. 
 After subsection (1) there is inserted— 
 ``( ) Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord or a housing action trust to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.'' 
 (2) In subsection (2)(a) the words ``a registered social landlord or housing action trust'' shall cease to have effect.''.'

Don Foster: It is me again, Mr. Stevenson.
 We now move to part II of the Bill. I sure that while many members of the Committee are fascinated by the important issues in part I, they would agree that part II is equally important deserves the same degree of serious consideration that we have given to part I. 
 As the person moving the first amendment to part II, I could steal the Minister's thunder by giving a tour d'horizon of the first section of part II , as the Minister's hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), has done on previous occasions. However, knowing that the Minister for Housing and Planning will be keen to do that himself, I shall forbear. I hope that, having read the Bill in detail, members of the Committee will be well aware of the context of the amendments. In simple terms, the amendments pick up a point I raised on Second Reading. It is noted in the Official Report that the Minister nodded at my remarks about the second ghost at the feast, namely, the absence of any mention of registered social landlords in the clause. 
 The Committee will be aware of the importance of registered social landlords and the vital part they play in the provision of affordable housing. More importantly, the Committee will be aware that that importance is growing daily. Between 1997 and 1998, the number of RSL homes doubled to more than 1 million, while the total number of local authority dwellings fell by more than 1 million. Since 1998, more than 400,000 homes have been transferred from 100 local authorities to RSLs. In the housing Green Paper, the Government indicated that they would support a transfer programme of up to a further 200,000 local authority homes each year. 
 It is also worth reflecting on the role that RSLs play in meeting the specific requirements of local authorities. To give an example, last year, 1999-2000, local authorities nominated 16,459 homeless households for housing in properties owned by registered social landlords. In much of the country, the vast majority of local authorities have transferred their properties to registered social landlords through the voluntary transfer scheme. Equally important is the fact that they have contracted with registered social landlords to carry out a number of their functions, not least the handling of parts of housing registers and of the local authorities' homeless services. That brief summary makes it clear that in many parts of the country, registered social landlords play a crucial part in dealing with the issue of homelessness. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset, has already conducted a voluntary transfer. The entire provision of affordable housing is in the hands of a number of registered social landlords, and the local authority has but a very small number of properties available to it. 
 The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that clear and specific reference is made to registered social landlords on the face of the Bill. The Minister will say that there are already references to voluntary organisations and that the registered social landlords fit within that group. In the past he has used argument A, the list argument, with great effect and the Committee has generally been ready to accept that there is disadvantage in adding baubles to the Christmas tree—adding a list of additional items to an existing list; the Minister's argument has always been the absence of some organisation from an expanded list would appear be significant. However, this is one occasion on which the absence of reference to the registered social landlords—the largest providers of social housing—is an indication that the Government have misunderstood the role of registered social landlords. The omission of RSLs from the short list that includes social services means that people will draw an inference that I suspect the Minister would not like to be drawn. 
 Putting registered social landlords on the face of the Bill is not enough. We have to make clear the role that we want such landlords to play. It is vital that they are involved directly in drawing up the homelessness strategy required under the first part of part II. In later amendments, I will suggest that, by itself, the drawing up of a homelessness strategy is inadequate and that that such a strategy needs to be part of a wider housing strategy. For now, it is vital that we set out a firm requirement whereby registered social landlords are directly involved in the drawing up of such a strategy, be it a homelessness strategy or a wider homelessness and housing strategy, as I would prefer. 
 Amendment No. 65 reflects my belief that, in their actions, RSLs should have regard to or take into account the local authority homelessness strategy. I suspect that the Minister will argue that the nature and status of RSLs makes it impossible to introduce such a provision. I have taken fairly detailed advice on that matter and I am now convinced that that argument is sound and that amendment No. 65 is probably inappropriate; therefore, I shall not press it. 
 None the less, I hope that, rather than spend time repeating my comments, the Minister will make it clear that his Department intends to provide clear guidance to registered social landlords regarding the importance of taking local authority strategies into account wherever possible. I do not ask that they be required to act contrary to their trust deeds or whatever system they operate under, but as long as such restrictions do not apply, RSLs should take local strategies into account. 
 I am trying to be brief and could go into much greater detail later if the Committee required it. I hope that the broad principles of the amendments are clear. I will not speak to each amendment; I shall respond to any questions later.

Nigel Waterson: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 88, 98 and 89. It is a curious feature of our deliberations that, although the Liberal Democrat amendment is a rather belated affair and narrower than our own more thought-through amendments, it is the first in the group and the lead amendment for debate. That is the way in which our procedures are organised.

David Curry: We have got it over with—that's the main thing.

Nigel Waterson: That is always a blessing.
 We have now changed gear into part II of the Bill. We leave behind the pleasures and conundrums of seller's packs and move on to homelessness and housing. I appreciate that some Government Members regarded the consideration of part I as a chore, irrelevant to them and their constituents. Perhaps they will brighten up now and give the Committee the benefit of their views. They have, at least, tabled some amendments. 
 I shall start with broader points about part II, which might save time later on. We are debating the issues in the context of a series of Government failures—failure to tackle homelessness; to build more social housing; to tackle empty properties; and now the problem of a record number of asylum seekers competing for the same accommodation. 
 The Bill has been a long time coming. The Minister for Housing and Planning—and Labour in opposition for 18 years—has spent considerable time thinking about housing issues. Yet here we are presented with a Bill that, if we are lucky, might just sneak on to the statute book before the election. It is too early to say whether yesterday's events—not yesterday's happy event, which has warmed the cockles of our hearts, but the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—

David Curry: I thought that you were talking about Liverpool's win.

Nigel Waterson: This is getting out of hand—

George Stevenson: Order. The amendments deal with who should be consulted and our debate should not range too wide of that.

Nigel Waterson: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. The failure to deliver on the pledge to license HMOs is another matter.
 The hon. Member for Bath has, for once, got it right. We are debating housing in circumstances that are shifting beneath our feet as we speak. The Conservative policy, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, was large-scale voluntary transfers, and the present Government have adopted it with alacrity—currently there are about 200,000 transfers. I hasten to add that it has not been endorsed in all quarters. Early-day motion 190 has been signed by Labour Members who want to ensure that 
further privatisation is halted to allow a proper debate including allowing local authorities to borrow directly and the long-term cost and other consequences of council housing privatisation. 
Clearly, Conservative policy has not met unqualified agreement among Labour Members, and early-day motion 233, signed by 23 Labour Members, also criticises some aspects of Government policy. 
 Amendment No. 88 is the main amendment in this group. It goes further than the Liberal Democrat amendment and discusses strategic partners, which would include 
registered social landlords and housing co-operatives; landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority...members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies. 
We might also have included homeless people in the amendments, as previous briefings have made the point that they are perhaps the most important people to consult on how a strategy is to be developed and to evolve. 
 The Conservatives party has always sought to encourage the widest possible range of housing tenure. In previous incarnations, the Labour party has always sought to promote social housing, and to offer a lack of choice to potential tenants. We have always sought to have a wide range of housing, including the private rented sector, social housing and the right to buy. As I have said—I make no apology for repeating it—it is a tribute to successive Conservative Governments, with no help from successive Labour Oppositions, that 69 per cent. of people in this country own their own home. It will continue to be part of any Conservative manifesto in future elections to try to extend home ownership and the right to buy even further.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the starter home initiative, which the Government recently announced. It will involve expenditure of £250 million in order to increase opportunities for low-cost home ownership. Will he give a commitment to the Committee that an incoming Conservative Government would honour that pledge in full?

Nigel Waterson: I do not want to risk your ire, Mr Stevenson, but we consider that the Government initiative is pretty paltry in light of the need. We are looking at homesteading policy, and other policies, to try to encourage home ownership in a substantial way. This Government have made it more difficult for people to apply the right to buy. The Conservatives wish to apply the right to buy across the board, to housing associations as well.

David Curry: Does my hon. Friend accept that the purpose of elections is to allow the electorate to have a choice? It may be true that this Government got into power by promising not to alter the policy of its predecessors, but I hope that my party will not seek power by saying that it will not alter the policies of this Government. If both parties do that, there is no point in having an election is there Mr Stevenson?

George Stevenson: Order. I recognise that it might be the time of the year, but I urge hon. Members to return to the amendments.

Nigel Waterson: Absolutely right Mr Stevenson. The Conservative party—and no doubt the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—is currently developing its proposals for the election manifesto, whenever that might be required.

Karen Buck: Given the hon. Gentleman's commitment about extending the right to buy to people in housing association property and that the present homelessness crisis, which we have had for a number of years, is closely linked to the supply of accommodation, is he also giving a commitment that a Conservative Government would ensure that there was a replacement of stock to at least the same level as that lost through right to buy?

Nigel Waterson: That could not have been a more eloquent example of what I call Old Labour thinking—a denial of choice. Surveys have consistently shown that the great majority of people aspire to owning their own home. For some people that aspiration will never be achievable. We have always sought to make it as achievable as possible for most people.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: In a moment.
 In answering the hon. Lady's intervention, I want to refer to an extremely thought-provoking article published in Housing Today of 11 January 2001,written by Mr. Mike Morris, chief executive of the William Sutton Trust. I am sure that those who take an interest in housing will know that this is the William Sutton Trust's centenary year. Mr. Morris makes a number of significant points about what he calls the need to integrate the housing market. He says that, overall, the social rented sector is declining and refers to a number of other forces that are all pressing to what he calls greater integration. He says that all new local authority lettings should become assured tenancies preserving existing tenant's right to buy. He also says: 
 This, coupled with perhaps an extension of the right to acquire under statutory purchase grant rules to the whole of the sector would help integrate social rented housing, leading to greater acceptance by tomorrows' customers. 
Does the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) disagree with Mr. Morris?

Karen Buck: As I have a large William Sutton estate in my constituency, I would be interested to know how the Opposition, and Mr. Morris with whom I will discuss this, will also accommodate the needs of severely overcrowded families in that stock who are desperate for a transfer to more acceptable accommodation and who cannot realistically exercise the right to buy.

Nigel Waterson: I would be more prepared to take lessons from Labour Members about dealing with homelessness if, as we discussed on Second Reading, homelessness had not been increasing under this Government.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman.
 The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North and I did have an exchange on Second Reading about the reasons for the problems in London. As we know, priority homelessness is at its highest level since 1996. The figure for total priority acceptances in 1997- 98 was 102,650. In 1999-2000 the comparable figure was 105,520. Under the present Government, 3,000 more people were homeless and in urgent need.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman please confirm that the figures he has given are incorrect? The correct figure for the last financial year, the year ending March 1997, during which the Opposition were in power, was 110,000 homeless applicants accepted by local authorities. The latest 12-month figure, under this Government, is 108,000. As I said on Second Reading debate, it is too high, but it is simply untrue to claim that the number of homeless households is higher now than when the Opposition were in power.

Nigel Waterson: The Minister might like to clamber down from this rather high horse. We had a similar exchange on Second Reading. He is not able to challenge the figures I have given because they come from his own Department—I have the document from the Department. For the Minister to try to rely on another measure of homelessness to achieve a 2,000 reduction, does not strike me as a very good legacy of four years of Labour Government, let alone 18 years of Opposition.

Andrew Love: I have been very patient.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman has indeed been very patient.

Andrew Love: I went to the trouble of checking the figures in my local authority. Between 1981 and 1997, 9,000 properties were lost to the social sector. During that period only 5,000 new properties were built. At present, Enfield has 2,400 people in temporary accommodation and over 1,000 in bed and breakfast accommodation. If the hon. Gentleman is going to extend the right to buy to other parts of the social sector and if we are not to have a massive increase in homelessness, does that not require the building of more accommodation in the socially rented sector?

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I wonder whether you can give me some advice. When I introduced this string of amendments, I said that I hoped that it would be convenient for the Committee if I stuck very narrowly to the issues raised in the new clauses. Furthermore, I thought that I was being particularly generous by not going through the amendments one by one and in detail. I hoped that we could get on to the principle and hear what the Minister had to say.
 Quite understandably, Mr. Stevenson, you have allowed the hon. Member for Eastbourne to have a much wider debate than I had expected. When we reach clause stand part, will you rule that we have already had a sufficiently wide debate? If so, may I raise now some of the points that I wished to make under a clause stand part debate?

George Stevenson: That is a very important point. In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to make his position clear and he was brief. I have allowed a wide-ranging debate on the amendments and have twice called for Members to return to the purpose of the amendments. I intended not to allow a clause stand part debate, but if the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye again, I would certainly allow him to speak.

Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I entirely accept your ruling, but may I seek your guidance on a matter of factual inaccuracy? The hon. Member for Eastbourne has given the Committee figures that I have every reason to believe are incorrect and on which I have challenged him. I have the official figures and I believe that the Committee should have the benefit of hearing them and not being misled. Would it be acceptable to cover that issue before we return to the main priorities of the debate?

George Stevenson: Like any member of the Committee, the Minister will have an opportunity to return to that point and to make points clear to the Committee.

Nigel Waterson: Before I return to the clause, I shall deal with the intervention by the hon. Member for Edmonton, of which I have not lost sight, and the two points of order. It may assist you to know, Mr. Stevenson, that we envisage a clause stand part debate, not least because it appears on the selection list. If I have spoken more widely than you anticipated, I apologise, but I did so partly as a result of relentless provocation from other members of the Committee.

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to interrupt again, but we need to clear up this matter. I referred to my intention not to call a stand part debate on clause 16. However, there will have to be a debate on new clause 17, so there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to speak. We cannot have it both ways by having one wide-ranging debate and then another. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that point.

Nigel Waterson: Exactly, Mr. Stevenson. I shall deal with the intervention and wind up my remarks on the narrower point as quickly as I can.
 The issue raised by the Minister's point of order is not new; it arose on Second Reading. My figures were taken from those published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. If the Minister is saying that those figures are misleading, I entirely agree that that is a serious matter. Let us be clear about what he is saying. 
 To finish that point and partly in answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Edmonton, we know that the problem in London is particularly bad, because it has the highest homelessness figures for 20 years: 48,000 households are in temporary accommodation, including 6,000 in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The hon. Gentleman talked about properties lost to the social sector, which shows the mindset that is really behind the problem. I hope that we can discuss in more detail the excellent article by Mr. Morris of the William Sutton Trust, who says that, overall, the social rented sector is declining. That factor must lie behind every point that we discuss under part II. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to remove the right to buy from council tenants, because that is the inevitable logic of what he says. Perhaps we can return to those issues in the stand part debate. 
 We find it strange that the Government seek to leave it to local government on its own to conduct homelessness reviews and to draw up homelessness strategies. Although under clause 17(1)(c) councils are asked to consider the work of other organisations, only in clause 18(8) are they asked to work jointly with them. Even then they are asked only to consult such bodies ``as they consider appropriate''. We hear a lot from the Government about strategic partnerships. In reality however, and this touches on the points made by the hon. Member for Bath, more and more councils will not be housing providers at all. They will not have a single unit of council housing. Under the provision, they will still produce the strategy and it is nonsense that they may not have to involve other partners.

Brian Iddon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the best practice that is going on in Labour authorities such as mine? We set up Bolton Community Homes Ltd more than five years ago and it works in close partnership with the local authority, which still manages a considerable number of its own houses, and leading RSLs who are operating in the town. There is a joint waiting list and collaboration on strategy and all housing-plus initiatives. Some Labour authorities have already adopted the best practice that the hon. Gentleman recommends to the Committee.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Clearly, the best authorities will be doing that anyway. This is really an attempt to ensure that it happens across the board. The best authorities will not need to be told by the Committee or anyone else.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, acknowledge that not all authorities follow best practice. Indeed, where a transfer took place before the Housing Act 1996, it is perfectly possible for the relationship between the local authority and the registered social landlord to have changed significantly so that they no longer have to follow the allocations procedure of the local authority. Some authorities do not now have that close working relationship.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is correct. He and I are on the same wavelength. We simply wish to see the practice applied across the board and it is difficult to see how the Minister could not see the force of putting this in the Bill.
 We want to amend the Bill to ensure that all organisations that have any role to play in a local authority's housing sector are full partners in the drafting of the homelessness strategy. The Local Government Association allocations and homelessness task group, no less, published a document not long ago called ``No Place Like Home''. It says: 
 There are many examples of existing good practice in closer joint working and co-ordination between agencies. However, effective implementation remains patchy on the ground.'' 
It continues: 
 The development of local protocols involving statutory and voluntary agencies should be further encouraged. 
Without going into the sort of detail appropriate to a stand part debate, organisations like the LGA, on a cross-party basis, and Shelter support the amendments. 
 We are keen to point out that the rather diverse list of strategic partners should have a role. Local authorities should give similar thought to that matter, which is the thrust of amendment No. 98. We are keen to ensure that users, as well as providers and enablers, have a say in their local homelessness strategy. To that end, we support amendment No. 69, which refers, among other things, to tenants' groups. Our amendment No. 95 would ensure that all local people have a say. 
 The points have been well made by the hon. Member for Bath. We take the same view as the Liberal Democrats, but actually go further. It would be encouraging to all the organisations and bodies that we list if they were written into the Bill. It is plain common sense.

David Curry: Is it in order to make some remarks now on the relationship between social services and housing providers, Mr. Stevenson? If there is not to be a stand part debate, I am not sure when I will find an opportunity to do so.

George Stevenson: I hope that I made it clear that the wide-ranging debate on the amendments will obviate the need for a clause stand part debate. It is my intention to deal with new clause 17 separately, which will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to comment on social services.

David Curry: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.
 This is what I would call an ``Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all'' set of amendments. There is always a temptation to try to write into the Bill a long list of interested parties, but when one notes the interchangeability of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments, one clearly detects the diligent scribblings of Shelter, the National Housing Federation, RICS and other interested parties. I do not want to be derogatory, but I have a feeling that a hymn sheet has been provided and people are singing from it.

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in identifying those organisations, but he will be pleased to note that I did not use a single word from the hymn sheet. Should he test me, however, I may revert to the hymn sheet for an answer.

David Curry: That is typical of Liberal Democrats. They just improvise around work that someone else has done.
 There is nothing wrong with the amendments. My attitude to them is like that to some of my daughters' boyfriends: I can see nothing particularly against or in favour of them. I hesitate to say any more about the boyfriends, in case I get into trouble.

Nick Raynsford: Would the right hon. Gentleman give any room in his house to the amendments?

David Curry: At the risk of irritating someone, I have to say that one has to give a fair amount of room in one's house to one's daughters' boyfriends.
 The amendments are tautologous in the sense that strategies cannot be developed without strategic partners. They are designed to bind a local authority to do what it is inescapable for a local authority to do in any case. That does not make them wrong, because it is important that we find out what the Minister means by ``strategy'', which is one of his wonderful words. It conjures up all sorts of wholesome ideas of joined-upness and people thinking together, but the truth is that a strategy can be full of holes. One can put anything on a piece of paper and call it a strategy, when it could just as well be called a series of ad hoc initiatives. Whether it works depends not on its name but on how it is implemented and whether people talk to each other to get the thing done. 
 The hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly highlighted the importance of registered social landlords and housing associations, and especially those that sprang from the 1996 Act, which allowed the formation of housing companies, which was a change, in that local authorities could retain a stakeholding, whereas previous legislation required the transfer to be moved entirely beyond the ambit of local authorities. The great acceleration of transfers followed that piece of legislation. 
 Birmingham has been circling around a transfer proposal, with a certain amount of agonising, but all its inquiries tend to suggest that there is not really an alternative to a stock transfer. Transfers of between 25,000 and 35,000 houses are becoming quite common. Birmingham, with 94,000 houses, and Glasgow, at roughly the same figure, are the two largest housing providers in the United Kingdom. 
 It is equally true that a lot of smaller authorities now feel that they cannot escape doing the same. District councils in my constituency include Craven, which covers one of the smallest areas in the country, and Harrogate , which is one of the largest in terms of population. Both are now actively pursuing the idea of stock transfer for precisely the same reason: that the need to spend is outpacing the capability to do so. Even if stock is in relatively good condition, the prospect is that it will deteriorate, not improve, as the years pass, so the maths dictate that transfer is probably the best way to raise the funds needed to make the jump forward and close that gap. At some stage, I expect to be lobbying Ministers on behalf of both of those authorities, one of which is controlled by the Conservatives and the other by the Liberal Democrats, to find a place for them on the programme. 
 RSLs are now too big to ignore. Home Housing is the largest in the country—larger than all but a handful of local authority providers. The body that I think used to be called North British has followed the fashionable mania for changing its name and is now called Homes for People, or some similarly pathetic name that lacks a certain intellectual toughness. As far as I am aware Bradford and Northern still retains that name, which has a solid ring and indicates vaguely what the organisation does, unlike names like Relate—we have not had the faintest idea of what it does since it changed its name—or, indeed, the Post Office. Registered social landlords, formerly housing associations, have now taken over as the locomotives of the provision and development of social housing. The funding now obviously comes from the private sector and enables the market to be developed.

Don Foster: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but it may be helpful to put it on the record that all the indications are that, by 2004, registered social landlords will have the majority of properties in the sector.

David Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for echoing what I said in an article in The Guardian about a year ago. I realise that writing in The Guardian might be yet another of the faults attributed to me, but never mind—one tries to find someone who is sympathetic and who will pay.
 It is true to say that we are witnessing the death of council housing in its classical form. New forms of tenure and new forms of landlord are emerging, and council housing in the old post-war sense is not going to be around for the next generation. We should all rejoice, because what is coming into being is better. The ability to bring in funding from the private sector and the ability to give people more choice are benefits. We should not get stuck on a particular concept and a particular label, because it is so easy for that sort of housing to be stigmatised. 
 At one time, it was a shorthand election law that the occupants of a privately owned house voted Tory and the tenants of a council house voted Labour. That is no longer true. Some of my best votes come from council houses, and people who live in a really smart private house probably vote Liberal Democrat. The whole electoral arithmetic has been overthrown. The right to buy had something to do with that, but it is certainly not the beginning and end of the story. 
 We should consider what are the necessary elements of a homelessness strategy. Many local authorities, irrespective of their political colour, will have most of the elements of a strategy in place, but they may not be assembled in the single document that can be labelled ``strategy''. Harrogate council in my constituency provides a good example, because it encompasses a large urban centre in Harrogate town itself and a wide urban hinterland. Harrogate's experience shows that there is less than meets the eye in part II, because it demands a lot of things that are already being done. I am in favour of a large part of part II but it is not ground-breaking; it only pulls together what most local authorities do already. 
 Harrogate covers a population of 160,000; it is big for a district authority, being spread over a large rural area, including a chunk of the Pennines, as well as the centre of Harrogate. Harrogate itself is characterised by two things; extremely high house prices, because it is a desirable part of the world, and a large pool of low-paid labour. Its industries, hotels, tourism, conference centres and restaurants typically employ people at the bottom end of the earning scale. One thinks of Harrogate as one of those pukka, Oscar Wildey places—like a south coast resort—but in fact it has much poverty, as well as a serious drugs problem. 
 Harrogate also has a significant homelessness problem, with more than 1,000 presentations a year, but only about 150 acceptances—about 15 or 16 per cent. That happens not because it tells the applicants to push off but because of its strategy of trying to ensure that people are caught before they are declared homeless and have to be housed. The emphasis is on prevention—which underlies what everyone is trying to do—by such measures as negotiations with a landlord or, when necessary or appropriate, with a building society, getting people on housing association waiting lists before they have to be declared homeless, and identifying people susceptible to becoming homeless and ensuring that they have access to the necessary advice. 
 The authority also maximises affordable housing by attracting capital finance, and tries to target homeless people into it. The town also has good-quality temporary accommodation, particularly in self-contained flats. In such places as Harrogate the two-year limit on temporary accommodation is not a constraint. I doubt that anyone has ever spent two years in temporary accommodation there, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the mechanisms that are in place. That is even less of a problem in big northern cities where there is surplus housing stock. London and some of the south-east present a wholly different picture because of the economic, population and immigration pressures there. Harrogate also leases homes from private landlords. About 45 houses are leased through schemes with the Housing Corporation or housing associations that buy or lease accommodation. 
 Harrogate should outline all those elements in a document. The strategy is in place, even it if it is not described as a strategy. Housing strategies already exist, because local authorities must do a housing investment programme presentation. We are producing 10-year programmes, and any local authority contemplating a transfer must produce a business plan, which is also in a sense a housing strategy—we will come later to the integration of a housing and homelessness strategy. That requirement is in a sense tautologous because for a homelessness strategy to exist, a housing strategy must be in place. Any local authority that does not see a relationship between the two must be singularly lacking in gumption, as we say in north Yorkshire. 
 The amendments are important because they give the Government an opportunity to describe the components of a strategy. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Minister will be able to repeat argument A, that if we include all those matters in the Bill there is always a chance that something gets left out that subsequently turns out to be significant, or that the requirements will in any case be met without having to be stated. In this case, I think that that is probably right. We must at some stage trust that people will use common sense. The Minister must tell us how he sees the strategy working and what he thinks are the elements of the strategy, so that local authorities know whether he has spotted something that they, with many years of practice in the field, have not. I look forward to speaking later on the relationship with social services, which is another important matter.

Nick Raynsford: This has been an important debate to begin our consideration of part II, which deals with homelessness. Since 1977, homelessness legislation has provided a valuable and important safety net for families with dependent children and other vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own. That epoch-making legislation was introduced as a private Member's Bill by a Liberal Member, Stephen Ross, with the support of the then Labour Government, and it has more than stood the test of time. There are provisions to strengthen that safety net later in the Bill.
 We must consider at the outset the causes and experience of homelessness, which can be profoundly disrupting, traumatic and damaging. It is vital to ensure that those who suffer homelessness get the help that they need. That is a fundamental responsibility of any civilised society, and we are determined to ensure that there is a safety net to provide that help. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, the Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.